The JREF Forum

[tholden]

I'd mentioned this on another thread but it needs to be emphasized.....

I've been dealing with the Internet since before there was a WWW or web browsers, I've seen usenet, talk.origins and all the rest, and I've had looks at several dozen discussion forums on the net including forums with both left and right political slants.

Out of all of that, the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) forum is by a considerable measure the worst I have ever seen and the greatest combination of ignorance and arrogance I have ever seen in one place on the Internet. If there is anything I've ever read which it reminds me of it, it would be Mencken's description of the American people:

And it is my fourth (and, to avoid too depressing a bill, final) conviction that the American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, and ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages..."

Do not take anything you see on that site seriously.

[Siggy_G]

Several of the key JREF forum members (of various nationalities) are executing 'scepticism' in a rather arrogant, misguided and clearly bullying way. Others have some actual informative input though. There is also a mob mentality at times, where several respond to a person in a rather patronizing and belittling way. The moderators seem to be more focused on banning members with non-consensus views rather than pay attention to ad hom attacks.

The computer screen literally screens much of the emotional and (real) social interaction, so there are less barriers for being rude; a growing issue especially faced by the youth in this Internet age. The reason for acting in such ways, likely stems from a lack of insight in diplomatic, empathic or ethical reasoning, all of which have insufficient emphasis in many educational systems and perhaps homes as well. It can also be an act of uncertainty or despair (believing that attack is the best defence) or merely being trigger happy. A highly insightful person could easily refute a claim or elaborate on an issue without acting in such ways. If a statement is clearly meant in a humouristic way, it makes the issue somewhat different. As much as the aforementioned JREF forum members call themselves critical thinkers or humanists, they have missed or misunderstood a fundamental property of being such.

[tholden]

Possibly a bit more to it than that. Those people seem to believe that being a skeptic confers some sort orf superiority...

[bdw000]

Several of the key JREF forum members (of various nationalities) are executing 'scepticism' in a rather arrogant, misguided and clearly bullying way. Others have some actual informative input though. There is also a mob mentality at times, where several respond to a person in a rather patronizing and belittling way. The moderators seem to be more focused on banning members with non-consensus views rather than pay attention to ad hom attacks.

The computer screen literally screens much of the emotional and (real) social interaction, so there are less barriers for being rude; a growing issue especially faced by the youth in this Internet age. The reason for acting in such ways, likely stems from a lack of insight in diplomatic, empathic or ethical reasoning, all of which have insufficient emphasis in many educational systems and perhaps homes as well. It can also be an act of uncertainty or despair (believing that attack is the best defence) or merely being trigger happy. A highly insightful person could easily refute a claim or elaborate on an issue without acting in such ways. If a statement is clearly meant in a humouristic way, it makes the issue somewhat different. As much as the aforementioned JREF forum members call themselves critical thinkers or humanists, they have missed or misunderstood a fundamental property of being such.

I say socialization has a lot (if not all) to do with it.

Television and movies are THE most influential parts of modern society. And look at computer games. Violence and bullying are literally glorified (when the right people do it). When people grow up seeing that sort of behavior glorified, they (without much thought of course) choose to mimic that behavior. Monkey see, Monkey do.

[tholden]

Another Internet place to avoid, nearly as bad as jref, is christianforums.com. The name is a sort of a deception of some sort...

[tayga]

The term skeptic has become corrupted to mean something like 'empirical materialist' these days whereas it used to indicate someone who knew their assumptions are assumptions. No modern materialist seems to recognise that their position is based on imaginary entities.

[jjohnson]

Tayga, you have hit the nail on the head. Skepticism is one of the core precepts in scientific dialog - its point is to continuously make people think carefully and ask themselves questions like, "is that statement well supported by observation, experiments, and/or data?" or, "What are the underlying assumptions we are dealing with in this subject, and are they valid? If not, what do we do about it?"

Too many people don't want to have their ideas challenged, even though in science, every theory is considered temporary until the net better one comes along. It is human nature to believe that one's ideas are solid, becasue it lends a sense of security to the world. Plus, if you read Kahneman, you realize that System 1 in the mind, the unconscious reflexive system, is designed to be fast, whicle the conscious, critical-thinking or cerebral system is very detail oriented and through, and is slow. It is also lazy, and will give in to System1 every chance it can. We have to work to think critically.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean something "bad"; a skeptic does not disbelieve anyone for the fun of it; she takes the time to ask the hard questions, to learn something new or useful, to get to know things and people better.

Thinking critically means paying attention to details, being rigorous in logic and methods, doing things thoroughly and well, keeping notes and recording data for others to use or disporive, etc. Too many people confuse "critical" with "criticize", and get defensive. If they were only good critical thinkers, they'd know the meanings or words well enough to understand the difference, and avoid being hostile!

Science should be collegial and polite. We're all in this together, and sure, some are passionate about what they enjoy and how they discuss things. But at the end of the day, the right stuff needs to stay with us and the chaff can be safely discarded after due process. Being mad or goading others, or being arrogant or impolite, short circuits good thinking, and makes you very unwelcome. It also simply waste's everyone's time.

Most of science has to be based on assumptions, if for no other reason than we don't know everything, and logic compels us to fill in the unknown blanks at the git-go, at the start of a theory or a hypothesis or even guesswork. We are way too lax about reminding ourselves and our audience of just what assumptions went in to the beginning. If we had the luxury of knowing everything, we'd have no need to make assumptions, would we? Assumptions, however, can be tested, and should be from time to time. Sometimes they are demonstrated to have been wrong, or misleading. "The stars and planets circle around the Earth, on large transparent spheres. We can see that." Can someone spot an assumption in there?

We need to ask ourselves more often, "What else that we can think of might also explain what we observe, or explain it in better detail, or with more fidelity and within narrower error margins?" A lot of people believe the science press without question becasue, a) they let themselves lazily use System 1 instead of critical thinking System 2, and b) the science press knows how to write attention-getting prose, emotional headlines, and present dramatic artists' interpretations of "alien life forms" or "shocking binary black holes merge and create stupendous gamma ray burst!!!"

I swear I am not making this up. Just read the headlines. They all do it. It attracts readership, if not thoughtful readers.

Be thoughtful, and optimistically, constructively critical in your thinking. Be courteous and listen while others express their ideas. Avoid places where bad behavior is tolerated or encouraged. Understand that civil discourse is a better means to an end than are bullying or dismissive statements. No one knowns it all. What fun would it be if we did?

Jim